We are interested in bringing together clinicians, teachers, and researchers for a discussion on the concepts of male vulnerability. Discussion will focus on definitions, historical development, differences in experiencing vulnerability (e.g., cross-cultural, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), and managing difficulties with contemporary norms of male vulnerability. Clinical testimonials will be presented. Planned outcomes would include some preliminary research ideas and potential clinical applications for others interested in this area of masculinity.

Bryana French, Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Professional Psychology

“Treating Men in the Real World”, Interactive Session, Thursday 3:00-3:50

Larry Beer, President, Child and Family Psychological Services

The secret is that men are afraid! For most men though it has been hammered into their psyche that being afraid is not “manly” and to admit fear is even less acceptable to what they have learned.

Being a man has meant being strong, stoic and in control. Sensitivity is something that needs to be hidden since it will be perceived as a sign of weakness and those who show it will be humiliated.

In division 51 we have been dealing with this unhealthy, but still “present” view of masculinity for close to 20 years. As a clinician I have observed that the expectation of not showing fear or weakness seems to be even stronger for large men. For example, the large guy who doesn’t play football or isn’t ready to battle is attributed less status. In my presentation I would l like to create a dialogue where those who attend can talk about the assumptions of bravery and strength that still exist in our culture (and in many, if not most other cultures), and talk about ways to help men admit to and deal with their true feelings and not only the feelings that men think that are acceptable for them to have.

Karen E. Farrell, Professor and Director of Training, Midwestern University

John Farrell, Associates in Clinical Psychology and Substance Abuse

Often women and men are unaware of how they regularly shame their partners when confronting and processing a problem or conflict which exists between them. Because of the ubiquitous gender-specific acculturation of traditional couples and the lack of awareness of similarities and differences in experiencing reality between partners, many times conflict is either avoided or escalates due to inadvertent shaming behaviors. In both instances the causes of the conflict remain unresolved. Healthy conflict resolution can escape the most well-meaning partners for reasons that are not well understood. Long-standing conflicts erode connection and intimacy. The differences between blaming and shaming will be reviewed, and specific examples will be given.

This session is intended to be both a clinical presentation and an interactive discussion. The presenters are both clinical psychologists and have been married for 32 years.

Many sexual minority and transgender individuals do not perform gender in traditional ways. However, gender variance is frequently met with anti-femininity in heterosexual and LGBT communities alike, escalating toward marginalization in a group that is already disconnected from sociopolitical power. For example, gay and bisexual men regularly state they are interested in dating “straight-acting men only,” and lesbian women with a “butch” appearance are frequently met with social disapproval. Sexual and gender minority individuals may also feel internal conflict identifying with socialized masculinity, which traditionally has promoted sexual prejudice. For example, transmen may have conflicting attitudes about espousing a traditional masculinity that reinforces sexism, while also wanting to pass as male to honor their trans identity. This Division 51 session will focus on non-heteronormative masculinities. All who engage in (or are curious about) research, clinical practice, and social advocacy work with sexual and gender minorities are welcome.

There are pockets or islands of research, clinical work and public policy efforts addressing human sexuality in a holistic, cross-specialty manner within APA, but these efforts are disconnected from each other. Division 51 is one of those islands. A review of the existing 55 divisions’ websites and newsletters found that 14 of them reference some aspect of sexuality. We would like to discuss the overall picture of how sexuality is addressed within the APA structure, and what efforts to support and energize this area would look like within the organization.

Jon Davies, Director, Mackenzie River Men’s Center, University of Oregon

David Shen-Miller, Associate Professor, Tennessee State University

James Lyda, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, San Francisco

Chris Blazina, Professor, Tennessee State University

In addition to positive contributions to society, men also frequently engage in behaviors that reduce life expectancy (e.g., alcohol and substance use, violence, suicide). Although many researchers have linked negative health outcomes to gender role socialization and adherence to masculine ideology, others have focused on adaptive aspects of men’s roles (e.g., courage, loyalty) and promoted “male friendly” and “gender aware” clinical approaches. In line with both of these approaches, the Men’s Center Approach (MCA) fuses attention to traditional male socialization, maladaptive behaviors/outcomes, and positive aspects of masculinity. Components of the MCA include: Acceptance, unconditional positive regard, respect for diversity, working from the inside-out, power sharing, strategic and collaborative planning, therapeutic experiences in non-traditional settings, and fostering/strengthening commitments to activism. The approach emphasizes working with men to identify possible masculinities, focusing on aspirations, goals, and fears about future selves and behaviors, and what men need to become healthy, responsible, nurturing family and community members. Possible masculinities emerged in reaction to deficit intervention approaches (i.e., focusing on what not to do instead of exploring positive models of masculinities), and includes working with men to incorporate intersecting aspects of identity (e.g., race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation) as they pursue aspirations and goals for behavior and emotional connection. The MCA also emphasizes accountability for client actions/inactions, using multiple contexts (e.g., visions of future, idealized self, feared self, community needs, and intersecting identities) as motivations for change.

In this conversation hour, participants will discuss how to integrate MCA principles into individual and group work across multiple settings, with clinical examples (community group, individual client, integration with human-animal bond) that highlight the applications, challenges, and future directions of the model. Within a multicultural context, participants will explore using the MCA to engage issues of behavior, power/privilege, harm to others, and emotional expression, as well as incorporating therapist barriers and strengths (e.g., countertransference, personal socialization).